Astroprof’s Page

How does the Flag Wave on the Moon?

Published on Aug 13, 2006 at 1:00 am. 166 Comments.
Filed under moon, space exploration.

People often ask me, “How can the flag on the Moon wave if there is no air?” Well, that would be a good question, if the flag actually waved on the Moon. People see the image shown here, and it looks like the astronaut is standing beside a flag that is standing out straight in a stiff breeze. That is what it is supposed to look like! However, there is no wind at all. So, how does the flag stay extended like that?

Well, quite simply, NASA wanted to have a flag to plant in the lunar surface. There is no wind, so the flag would just hang there limp. That would not be very impressive. Also, it would be just a swatch of colored fabric in photos. There would be no way to tell that it was an American flag. So, they came up with an ingenious way of sticking a flag in the surface that looked like it were waving. The fabric of the flag has a wire mesh sewn into it. The flag rolls up into a nice little package. When on the Moon, the astronauts extend the pole and stick it into the ground. They can then unroll the flag. Working in heavy spacesuits, though, it is easier to unroll the flag and then stick it into the ground. The lunar surface is grainular and tough to poke the flag into. So, they have to rock the pole back and forth shoving it down into the ground. Watching on the TV, this back and forth motion makes the flag swing back and forth like it is waving.

The wire mesh is sewn into the fabric so that the flag will appear to stand out straight in the absense of wind. But, a flag sticking straight out from the pole doesn’t look natural. So, the astronauts often would extend the flag and bend ripples into it so that it looked more like it were waving. Look at video of the astronauts moving around the flag. It looks like it is waving, but it is frozen in position as the astronauts move by. It doesn’t actually wave. As it turns out, the flag didn’t really unroll as smoothly on the Moon as it did in tests on Earth, so the astronauts didn’t have to do much work to make it look like it were waving. It tended to look crinkly anyway.

My final image is of the flag left by Apollo 11, as seen from the lunar lander. Without weather, one would expect that this scene would remain like this forever. But, that isn’t quite what happened. When the ascent module took off, the blast from the exhaust of the rocket engine blew over the flag. Just before it blew over, the blast shook it. This is the only time that the flag actually waved while on the Moon — while it was being blasted with rocket exhaust. Also, sadly, I would imagine that it probably isn’t red, white, and blue anymore. Likely the intense ultraviolet light from the Sun has faded the colors, just as it does to flags on Earth. But, without the protection of the Earth’s atmosphere, the ultraviolet light on the Moon is far stronger than it is on Earth, so I would be rather surprised if after this much time any color is left.

-Astroprof

Images courtesy of NASA

166 Comments to ‘How does the Flag Wave on the Moon?’:

Andrew on August 13, 2006 at 2:05 pm: 1

What type of material was the flag made with?.I also wonder if with so much UV light,if it has become essentially dust at this point.Leaving of course, the mesh woven into the fabric behind?.
Astroprof on August 13, 2006 at 3:39 pm: 2

You might be right. I don’t know if it is true of all six flags, but the Apollo 11 flag started off as a simple requisition of a standard government issue nylon flag. Nylon will break down in UV. So, perhaps there isn’t much left now.
allison on March 15, 2007 at 12:46 pm: 3

oh my gosh,that is like so cool!!!!!!My dad & i were just sitting in our living room going over my science study guide,when we came to the question “which of these is true?”& i said B.,THERE IS NO WIND OR WATER ON THE MOON.Then my dad asked me to ask my teacher the next day “if there is no wind or water on the moon, then why was the flag blowing in the wind when Astroprof stuck it in the moon?”So the next day i asked my teacher & she said “i don’t know allison,that’s a very good question!Then my other teacher,ms.ross,said “maybe you should write to the nasa one day.And that’s my story!!!!
Ryan on April 2, 2007 at 1:08 pm: 4

…There are videos of the flag waving, and not during liftoff from the surface - NOt just pictures showing it meshed-up. The flag clearly moves and shifts and waves in some wind - check it out yourself. I came here looking for the answer to my question and only found partial adresses to a real problem.
Astroprof on April 2, 2007 at 1:25 pm: 5

There are no videos of the flag waving in wind. The only times that it waves is when it is being buffeted by the exhaust of the ascending rocket, it is being pushed into the ground, the pole or the ground near the pole is being disturbed by an astronaut, or it the oscillations of such are damping right after such an event. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
Sean on April 26, 2007 at 9:02 pm: 6

Interesting! Several months ago a guy behind the counter at our local gas station asked me if I could explain how the flag on the moon moves considering the atmosphere of the moon is essentially a vacuum. Assuming he might be correct about the flag moving, and after thinking about it, my hypothetical explanation was as follows: Although there are no molecules to create wind, perhaps the different colors of the flag absorb and reflect energy from the sun at different rates and magnitudes, and much like one of those gadgets with white and dark diamonds in a light bulb-like vacuum chamber spinning when a light is turned on, so moves the flag. However, the wire mesh and movement from rocket exhaust” explanation(s) make more sense. My question now has to do with gravity vs. the wire mesh. Even though the gravitational force of the moon is only ~15% of that of the earth, in the absence of a both a wire mesh and a “photon wind”, wouldn’t an initially extended flag eventually fall into a drooping position?
Astroprof on April 26, 2007 at 10:03 pm: 7

Certainly. If there were no wire mesh, then the flag would just hang limply, and NASA didn’t think that would look good, so that is why they added the wire mesh.
Kristoff on July 27, 2007 at 2:54 pm: 8

I love how people still don’t believe we were on the moon… I would imagine these are the same people who think that GWB was the one who created 911…

listen to this man people, he has explained it more than anyone really deserves… and I thank him for doing so…
Amy on November 13, 2007 at 11:37 pm: 9

That was awesome…..I needed to do a report on how the flag can stay up on the Moon.Guess I found the answers!
unipal390 on February 7, 2008 at 2:18 pm: 10

I believe all the apollo moon landings were a hoax theres too much evidence to prove it, a) the flag swaying, b)astro belt, c) no blast crater yet on the posters released by nasa clearly picture a blast crater. d) where are the stars?? lol e) compare backgrounds that supposedly are 2miles apart, same background.
Astroprof on February 7, 2008 at 2:22 pm: 11

Actually, there is overwhelming evidence that the landings were real. There are the reflectors left on the Moon, the moon rocks, etc.

The flag doesn’t sway. What astro belt? There is a small scooped away area under each lander in photos, and the stars are FAR too dim to show up in short exposure photographs. And, looking at distant objects from only two miles different positions looks similar even here on Earth.
Rick C. on February 16, 2008 at 5:10 pm: 12

While watching the DVD In the Shadow of the Moon I noticed that the flag moved slightly right after the astronaut jammed the flag pole into the ground. As he hopped away the pole moved slightly and the flag appeared to ripple. I assume gravity played a small part and the energy of the pole moving was transfered to the flag’s material giving it the illusion of blowing in the wind. The scene was captured from other angles too. The best angle is the one that viewers have seen most often on the Internet (youtube). I’ve compared both videos at the same time. Each angle the flag is moving while being touched. But the youtube video gives the impression that it is moving untouched while an astronaut hops past even though it is directly after being touched. This, I believe, is the root of the wind blown flag mythology.
kyren on May 3, 2008 at 7:00 pm: 13

Thanks man I needed this for my thesis paper. Also, to all the nut jobs out there who believe that the moon landings were fake, just shut up, we’re tired of your idiotic ideals and obnoxious opinions.
vishal on May 9, 2008 at 4:11 am: 14

Is this true, the saying that man not landed on moon. I just see pictures of flag waving on moon. But how??????????
lol) its is so wrong. What do u thimk astroprof?
Astroprof on May 9, 2008 at 9:01 am: 15

As I said, the flag doesn’t wave. And, we know for a fact that men went to the Moon. After all they brought back rocks and they left reflectors there that we bounce lasers from.
lizeth on May 25, 2008 at 8:05 pm: 16

this is exactly what i was looking for .?
Poop'n Head Wilson on June 9, 2008 at 1:34 am: 17

if you watch the new t.v. program called “when we left earth:The Nasa missions” (on Discovery channel) they show video of the flag “Moving in a waving motion” with no one making any contact with it, with the flag already unrolled&the craft still on the moon/not blasting off.. at least I think thats what I saw, I don’t remember now lmao. also, you cant see stars twinkle in the background ,because there is no atmosphere on the moon like earth. dont get me wrung, I agree with the fact we landed on the moon . please send me a friend request - http://www.myspace.com/nicky1069
Astroprof on June 9, 2008 at 11:52 am: 18

If you look carefully at the video, which was in their introductory sequence, you’ll notice that it was when the ascent stage was taking off from the Moon. Yes the flag was moving around, and even fell over, as a result of the rocket exhaust. But, it did not “wave” on its own. Also, if you are looking out the window of the craft, then you cannot trust the star images that you see. Everything is distorted through those windows. Cameras that were out in the vacuum did not see stars twinkling.

Sorry, I don’t do the whole myspace thing.
Prof. Rickover on June 25, 2008 at 12:54 pm: 19

The moon ‘hoax’ idiots are paranoid that humans did something epic without involving them in it - at least that’s my view. As for propagation from one generation to the next, it can only be the same type of low-intelligence fools that are in need of something to belong to i.e. moon hoax theory believers. The opposite side of that coin is the well-meaning idiots that acknowledge the moon landings as fact - but with incredibly faulty data to back them up i.e. ‘We did so land on the moon! I’ve seen the space shuttle lift off and take people to Mars’

As academics, we’re forced to acknowledge that idiocy is a cottage industry that will never go away. I need only nod at the Flat Earth Society as a case in point. NOTE: The Flat Earth Society’s explanations of the moon landings are quite entertaining.
FoamyJr on June 25, 2008 at 6:28 pm: 20

I have recently reviewed the videos of an Apollo 15 astronaut passing in front of the flag on YouTube and have seen the flag subsequently moving.

I have always wondered if this might be caused by the kicking up of dirt caused by the way the astronauts hopped.

Whenever you see video of how the astronauts skipped to move, there is always a frontward spray of dust, and the spray is more accentuated the faster they moved. You can see the astronaut in question is moving at a fair speed. In such low gravity (not too mention, a vacuum), the mass of even a little dust hitting the flag would cause it to react with slight movement.

This seems to me to be a far more reasonable explanation then anything else I’ve seen. Any thoughts, Astroprof?
Mr. Physics on June 25, 2008 at 9:15 pm: 21

Don’t forget people - Things can move even without air. How else do you explain planets, stars, asteroids, comets, etc.
Be sure that you distinguish the CAUSE of the motion you are discussion. Is the motion due to the astronauts moving the flag pole around? If so, the inertia of the flag’s material can cause it to continue moving after the astronauts stopped moving the pole! This gives the flag the illusion of “rippling” in the wind.

Study your physics in order to answer questions about the universe!
Prof. Rickover on June 25, 2008 at 11:49 pm: 22

“Don’t forget people - Things can move even without air. How else do you explain planets, stars, asteroids, comets, etc.”

Say what? I’m so confused.
Mr. Physics on July 26, 2008 at 6:30 pm: 23

Mr. Physics.
You don’t talk physics.
You talk nonsense.
You make no sense.

Please, don’t call yourself Mr. Physics. It doesn’t suit you at all.

Thank you
Kind regards,
Mr. Physics (I just gave your name a proper home)
Astroprof on July 30, 2008 at 1:39 pm: 24

OK, people, play nice.

I have had to remove several comments where foul language was used. Let us act like adults here.

I find it amazing that so many people have trouble believing that we went to the Moon when all the evidence points to that. It never amazes me how some people would rather believe in some sort of conspiracy than to admit that someone could do something pretty big.
Planet Football on August 4, 2008 at 5:50 pm: 25

Astroprof, I can understand the questioning of the moon landings. However, if it was hoaxed in a hollywood studio im sure they would of uncovered it by now with the amount of people who would of been involved in the cover up. I mean, im sure Speilburg can tell a staged set if he saw one! Also, we must remember that the U.S looked at the space race with the Russians as a morale boost for the country during the Cold War, bragging rights and missile technology advances. So if they would take a risk in lying to a nation, the consequence in them being found out would have been more damaging than good, especially for Mr Kennedy.
Physics Teacher on August 10, 2008 at 10:26 am: 26

ooh took orf me fackin words then eh ??
Cold War this, Cold War that, Cold fackin War shake it all about, I’ll give you a Cold War, a Cold War up the wife’s shitta is what I’ll do
Dayvid on August 29, 2008 at 12:53 am: 27

Mythbusters on the Discovery channel addressed certain conspiracy theories and one of the ones they answered was flag waving on the moon. Had something to do with no air resistance on the moon. They probably have the episode on their website. One of many awesome episodes. Go Mythbusters!
alex on September 2, 2008 at 2:12 pm: 28

I would wonder why dont they go to the moon again like an aniversary thing -foor us morale? I mean it should be a piece of cake now adays in this age and the imaging should be amazing with the technology.This would be a fun thing for america now.I mean the space shuttle can be there to document it all and it would be interesting.
Astroprof on September 2, 2008 at 3:13 pm: 29

Actually, getting to the Moon is difficult. All of the people who did it before have retired, or died. We can’t even get the companies that worked as contractors and subcontractors to build the same parts, since many of those companies don’t even exist anymore. And, now we have new technology. So, we have to start all over again from scratch.
Rachel on September 5, 2008 at 10:35 am: 30

Well hi My Name is Rachel Im going my Science HMWK and it is to, so im going to show my teacher up by showing him this site but do you actully have an answer to my question.
Rachel on September 5, 2008 at 10:40 am: 31

OK last message was a mess this is what its surpossed to say

Im doing my Science HMWK and it is to find out ‘Why doesnt a flay wave on the moon, so im going to show my teacher up by showing him this site but do you actully have an answer to my question.
Tom Green on September 11, 2008 at 9:01 pm: 32

hey every one. I completely agree with the fact that we landed on the moon.

does any one have any links to websites that talk about life on the moon? im doing a show about “life that could be” on the moon. please message me back.
College(SpaceCurious) on September 14, 2008 at 8:32 am: 33

Life couldn’t exist in the moon except if there’s a living thing that could withstand 100* C as an average temp in the morning and -13* at night. And it doesn’t even have an atmosphere.

Astroprof….
is there an exact copy of the cam. used on the moon?
if there are any, is it in the market?
Calgary on October 1, 2008 at 3:08 pm: 34

Chinese ‘taikonauts’ Flag Waving in Space Outside the Orbit Module (02:00-03:00)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMxQEHfU6hM&NR=1
Ian on December 22, 2008 at 9:14 pm: 35

The Van Allen radiation belt is another reason why people feel the moon lands were fake. The existence of the belt makes it impossible for humans to travel to the moon due to the radiation. It would also be impossible to bring the film that was captured back to Earth because even low radiation would destroy it. We may have gone to the moon but not with the Apollo; which would have required 3mm think lead making it too heavy to take off. Another strange thing was that many of the photos showed multiple shadows when there is only one sun source of light in the sky. I personally believe the Apollo take-off, videos, etc. were for public consumption and we had/have better ways of getting to the moon…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt
Astroprof on December 22, 2008 at 10:34 pm: 36

The van Allen belts are nowhere near intense enough to keep astronauts from going through it, nor would the radiation destroy film any more than would the X-ray machines in airports.
aln on December 23, 2008 at 10:25 am: 37

moon rocks? how could they be an evidence? russians have got moon rocks as well and no russian cosmonauts have been there as far as I know…
sid on December 23, 2008 at 9:08 pm: 38

I would love to visit the site of the first moon landing. That would be cool.
jason on December 24, 2008 at 6:02 am: 39

don’t know if someone mentioned this or not… don’t have time to read the million posts, BUT.. the flag wasn’t mesh-reinforced- there was a horizontal support bar across the top of the flag. replica can be seen waving in a vacuum on mythbusters.com
Physicist on December 24, 2008 at 4:58 pm: 40

YOU ALL A BUNCH OF MORONS!
There is no water on the moon, there is no wind on the moon, in fact there is not even air on the moon because there is VACUUM!!!
And that is why it all behaves like that!
Go and learn some physics - THAN critic!
Zilla on January 9, 2009 at 11:12 am: 41

No one could hide a secret this big, too many people involved. Clinton couldnt get away with doing one intern, maybe 4 people knew about that. This would require hundreds of people, maybe thousands of people.

Physics and common sense aside, you couldn’t hide a hoax this big.
Geovoni on January 27, 2009 at 8:45 pm: 42

Im port of the anti-intervention foundation recommendation. we here, have all means to believe that the moon landing was a act against man kind in a way to be racist against blacks. we here are studying and analyzing this “moon landing” to assure all evidence is regulated with correct correspondence for our school systems here in our small town Divigi Africa. this page is going to be segmented into todays segment of announcements to the R.A.F.F. meting.

thank you for your time. Geovoni
Geovoni on January 27, 2009 at 8:46 pm: 43

Im part of the anti-intervention foundation recommendation. we here, have all means to believe that the moon landing was a act against man kind in a way to be racist against blacks. we here are studying and analyzing this “moon landing” to assure all evidence is regulated with correct correspondence for our school systems here in our small town Divigi Africa. this page is going to be segmented into todays segment of announcements to the R.A.F.F. meting.

thank you for your time. Geovoni
Ian on February 13, 2009 at 3:12 am: 44

Astroprof,

According to Wiki (as noted above) the Van Allen belt is an issue in space travel:

“Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. In 1962, the Van Allen belts were temporarily amplified by a high-altitude nuclear explosion (the Starfish Prime test) and several satellites ceased operation.[citation needed] Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as incoming ions may be as large as the circuit’s charge. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.

Missions beyond low earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares.

An astronaut shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit passing through the radiation belt will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year.[6]”
Astroprof on February 13, 2009 at 7:53 am: 45

Fortunately, it didn’t take a year to pass through the van Allen belts. While the astronauts got some radiation exposure during the short time they were passing through the belts, they also got radiation exposure during medical X-rays before the mission.
Levi on March 9, 2009 at 11:59 am: 46

why are the stars in the background of any of the pictures, im doing an essay on The moon landing in 1969 and my teacher wants me to prove it was a haux, how can Armstongs footprint be large on the moon suface.
carlos on March 11, 2009 at 8:10 am: 47

Men have been on the Moon, twelve of them have actually walked on the surface of the moon. Period!
Anonymosity on April 16, 2009 at 3:49 pm: 48

Ian is correct. Well done. The Radiation belt is one of the many problems of this flawed conspiracy, and more and more people are starting to catch on to this hoax. In the 50’s, the Soviet Scientist had calculated that it would take a mere 6 feet of lead protection for one to be safe walking on the surface of the moon. What changed in a few years time? It sure wasn’t the lead? The astronauts would not have been safe on the moon. Also your theory on the stars not getting caught in the camera aperture is flawed. You can go outside on a clear night and see 2000 stars with the naked eye in “our” atmosphere. My Nikon digital camera will take photos of these bright stars in 1 picture with 1 second exposure times. On the moon you would see many celestial objects with the naked eye with no light pollution or an atmosphere to blot out the heavens. More should have been seen in the pictures of the stars.
Astroprof on April 16, 2009 at 10:30 pm: 49

Anon, you are in error. It may take a lot of shielding to STAY in the van Allen belts, but not to pass through them. The astronauts got very manageable radiation exposure due to their brief passage through the belts. Astronauts were passing through the belts all the way back to the Gemini program. And, your camera may get stars if you take a photo of a dark sky, but try taking a photo with a brightly lit foreground at night. You get no stars at all.
IQOF183 on April 17, 2009 at 10:06 am: 50

Astro I think what Anon was trying to point out is that just passing through the belt would be extremely detrimental to one’s health. Also it would supposedly take a few meters of lead protection to allow “moon walking” is what he is trying to get at. That was a documented study done in the 60’s by the top scientist of that day. That protection alone the astronauts wore wouldn’t be enough to ward off that much radiation.
Astroprof on April 17, 2009 at 4:07 pm: 51

IQ,
One of the reasons for the spacecraft exploring the van Allen belts during the 60s was to see if it were possible to survive passage through them. I would agree that during a solar storm, or some other radiation event, the astronauts would not have had sufficient protection. However, those events did not happen, and so the radiation exposure was survivable. As for detrimental effects, most of the astronauts did, indeed, have some radiation induced health effects.
IQOF183 on April 21, 2009 at 12:02 pm: 52

I was pointing out on the surface of the moon; not the radiation belts, but your point was well taken nonetheless.
Steve on May 14, 2009 at 4:30 am: 53

Hi
I just saw a documentary about the “Moon Hoax”. The first thing I would like to point out is that I am not on any side. I have too few info to take any. But I wanted to ask about the Radiation. Have heard that getting to the Moon means overpassing some kind of extremely dangerous level of radiation. So how it is possible?

Thanks in advance for a reply
Astroprof on May 14, 2009 at 8:23 am: 54

Passing through the van Allen radiation belts is one of the issues with going to the Moon. Before manned spaceflight, it was thought that the radiation exposure would be too much. Many of the people who believe that we didn’t go to the Moon keep turning to what was thought in the late 50’s and early 60’s without looking at newer data and say that the exposure would be too much. But, during the 60’s more spacecraft measured the radiation levels, and manned Gemini missions flew through the belts. The exposure is high for sustained exposure, but not too bad for short term. After all, it would be fatal for you to live continuously in a radiation environment equal to what you get from medical X-rays. But, an X-ray now and then is not considered particularly harmful. The van Allen belts have far too high of a radiation level to stay in them for an extended time, but it is OK to pass through them. The astronauts did receive a large radiation dose during their flights, of course, and many have died of cancer.
Mina on June 2, 2009 at 5:33 pm: 55

hi .. i saw a video pointing that the shadows wasn’t pararelle, wich means that the source of the light was near, it wasn’t sun
Astroprof on June 2, 2009 at 9:42 pm: 56

Shadows are also not parallel if you have uneven sloped ground, as on the moon. Mythbusters did an episode on that, showing that non-parallel shadows don’t mean a staged event.
Astroprof’s Page » Yes, men really did go to the Moon. on July 17, 2009 at 4:32 pm: 57

[…] are faked. What about the flag waving? That, too, is another favorite of the doubters. I wrote about that on my blog some time ago. Wow. I was surprised by the response of those who were unwilling to […]
J Carleton on July 18, 2009 at 1:43 am: 58

Well, at the time of the Apollo missions, the news media was also given this explanation by NASA if the flag might appear to sway… as to why they believe it looks like the flag is blowing in a wind.

…the explanation, as I recall, is that cosmic dust particles exist in sufficient quantities in space to cause small or wafer-like objects (like a flag) to move. Cosmic dust particles (and photonic particles) move rather freely because they are unhindered by gravitational forces in space.

Many are tiny molecules of cosmic gas and dust and they exist in sufficient quantities…no, they are nowhere as thick as our air on earth, but there are plenty of them on the moon and throughout space.

This is one reason the astronauts wear those thick suits out in space–so as to protect their skin from “burns” caused by the flying dust…

What most earthlings don’t understand is that here on earth, we are protected from this cosmic dust by our thick atmoshere… these dust particles bombard our outer atmosphere constantly, but many of them burn up long before they can reach us here on terra firma. Even with nature’s protection, many cosmic dust particles do reach our earth’s surface.

Yet, if one hunts around the internet trying to find an answer, they find mostly the hoax theories…I have searched all over the internet for the cosmic dust explanation, and I can only find a few good explanations…the NASA site has one of the best:

Cosmic Dust Abounds in Space
J Carleton on July 18, 2009 at 1:45 am: 59

Oops! I meant to leave this link from NASA about cosmic dust particles:

VietFun Cosmic Dust Abounds in Space
184IQ on July 19, 2009 at 9:32 am: 60

Please let us know when you ratify this “moon landing thing” for your third world institution, Geovoni. Only your critical endorsement will truly validate the greatest accomplishment in the history of mankind– done at the expense of your people, of course. Racist.
That’s One Small Step For Man … « 84RULES on July 20, 2009 at 7:32 am: 61

[…] How Does The Flag Wave On the Moon? Astroprof August 13, 2006 […]
Emily on July 20, 2009 at 3:29 pm: 62

I think when you are talking about something this scientific, I wouldn’t quote Wikipedia… I’ve had friends who have gone on there and changed things for fun, after all anyone can edit it…
bjohnsonsmith on July 21, 2009 at 2:48 am: 63

I must admit that the Apollo 15 footage of flag moving, after the astronaut passes it, does beg the question as neither he or his colleague are touching it. What would be a likely explanation?
However if the whole thing were a hoax why did the Russians not say so at the time, or since?
Astroprof on July 21, 2009 at 6:47 am: 64

As the astronauts moved around, they tended to hop a bit. The vibrations from their movements can pass a short distance through the ground, and that can cause vibrations in the flag pole as they pass. Those vibrations could then make the flag sway.
Nathan on July 21, 2009 at 10:34 am: 65

Also, there could be a “spring” effect caused by the small horizontal telescoping rod and by the pole itself. If you stick a metal rod into the ground and bend it to the side then let it go, it will continue its motion until the resistance of air and the internal resistance in the rod slows it to a stop. Now imagine this rod in space with no air resistance! I imagine it could cause the flag to wiggle and wave after the astronauts have let go of it. At least that is this mechanical engineers take on it.
Robin Cleghorn on August 10, 2009 at 10:11 pm: 66

Hi Astroprof, this is a great blog. Isn’t it possible to use current telescope technology to look at the surface of the moon and locate the lander bases or the moon buggy,etc? Then the answer to all doubters would be right there for all to see! I dont mean home scopes, but Hubble or telescopes on ISS, etc.
Astroprof on August 10, 2009 at 10:25 pm: 67

Hello, Robin.

There is no telescope on Earth or in Earth orbit capable of seeing anything as small as the landers. In fact, only one lunar orbiting satellite has ever had telescopes capable of seeing the landers, and it DID see them! Images are now available of the landers sitting on the surface of the Moon. I wrote about that here .
OnTheFence on August 25, 2009 at 4:34 pm: 68

Ok, without diving into any details you have to ask yourselves the following questions.

Why stop there?
As early as man can remember we have been a race of discoverers and race of inventors a race that evolves (yes evolves – we have to take responsibility for something on this earth even if it is that we are ruining it).

When we invented the wheel, did we stop there? When we invented electricity, did we stop there? When Christopher Columbus and Sir Walter Raleigh discovered, did they / we stop there?

OK, so you enter a race. You buy running shoes, shorts a shirt. You train, you plan. The race starts, you are overtaken and someone else wins, do you stop the race and walk away?

Have you ever researched what technology existed during 1961 - 1969?

It usually takes about 6 to 7 years to design a motor vehicle from concept to a product. In 1961 the goal of putting a man on the moon was announced, 8 year?

Today, our world’s countries are asked about space exploration and moon landings. The reports indicate that the technology is not quite there and that 20+ years are required to complete a major mission, why?

In the 1950’s car manufactures employed the use of crash test dummies to test the safety of their vehicles before selling them to the public. No unmanned mission to the moon where carried out, why?
Astroprof on August 25, 2009 at 9:31 pm: 69

Actually, Fence, plenty of unmanned missions were sent to the Moon. There were called the “Surveyor” and “Ranger” programs. The first manned launch of the Apollo program was Apollo 7. Other than Apollo 1, which resulted in the deaths of three astronauts, the rest were unmanned Apollo launches.

Also, a lot of risks were taken in the 1960s that would be considered unacceptable today. When the astronauts were killed in the Apollo 1 accident, that put a hold on things for several months, not the years after the Columbia accident.

Also, the amount of money spent on the program in the 1960s far exceeds in real dollars the amount of money being spent now to return to the Moon. That is one reason it is taking longer (besides the greater safety concerns).

And, of course, we now have a spacecraft in orbit around the Moon that has a camera capable of taking photos of objects as small as the Apollo descent stages, and it has indeed imaged them.
OnTheFence on August 26, 2009 at 8:50 am: 70

Still on the fence. Believe me I want to believe.
40 years ago! 40 year! and we still are no further today.
I just can’t believe with the technology we have today that we can pull of such a feat. But today we would have a better chance.
Seriously $30Billiion, 8 year, 40 years ago.
Safety, in the past 40 years surely we have worked out safety issues / risks, or have we really understood the reasons why not?
Ravenant211 on September 5, 2009 at 4:25 pm: 71

I think the reason nothing new is happening is because of the money factor. No one cares enough to spend that much money to create the new craft/technology prototypes and test it all out. The latest news articles I saw about space travel never said it wasn’t possible to do things faster than the 20 year mark, but not with the budget they are being given. Most of the developed countries that could consider something “recreational” like space travel as opposed to just keeping their country from collapse don’t seem to feel that the costs are worth it anymore. I guess back in the 50s and 60s people thought maybe there would be some amazing change to the human race when we made it to the stars. Perhaps Star Trek would be a reality within years at that point? I think many shows and movies of that time show this belief in the popular mindset. It seems like that, while they found success in making it to the moon, man has found out more and more that this universe is huge and extremely difficult to travel (putting it very lightly). As the interest has faded from the public eye the funding hasn’t been there. Even when I was kid (I’m 30 now) there was more interest than there is now. NASA was still highly regarded and I often heard news about NASA and the various space endeavors. Now you never even hear anything about even space shuttle launches unless you are intentionally keeping up with that… and of course unless there is a problem (people have to have their horror stories in the news). I think the main reason you haven’t seen much progress is simply, not enough money being spent on it and not enough concern to change that. With America’s economy and other issues developing the average person just simply doesn’t care enough about space travel and I am sure there would be a major uproar if we were to spend so much money on it when so many are out of jobs and the economy is stagnating. I would like to see more interest in space travel and technologies myself, but majority rules I suppose.
kina on September 8, 2009 at 7:27 pm: 72

please I am not lost but i am still doesn’t belive at all about this story, i have more evidences to prove to my boyfriend that it’s hoax. Him, he believe in it. sorry for him.
Jezus53 on September 19, 2009 at 7:59 pm: 73

Just a thought, but the Soviets might have proof of this. Think about it. If you’re rival makes the claim that they’re going to the moon, what are you going to do? Are you going to sit there and trust them and go, “Oh I believe you even though we are in a heated battle to see who is superior.” No way! I’m sure they were probably tracking us via telescopes or something. It’s just a thought that popped into my head right now, and I’m pretty confident that if you searched Soviet documents that you might find some proof.
The on October 4, 2009 at 6:33 pm: 74

I took my son to meet Buzz Aldrin yesterday (!) at our local bookshop for a signing of his new children’s book, and my son asked him this exact question: How come the flag is waving on the moon? Buzz answered, as you did, the flag was only meant to appear as if it were waving, but because of the long line, we didn’t have an opportunity to ask the follow-up question: HOW was it made to appear that way? So glad I found the answer here! Thank You!
Andrew on October 6, 2009 at 10:46 pm: 75

i have analyzed the video footage, and i don’t see the flag moving all i see is a shaky camera i mean the tripod on an uneven surface would cause it to shake. and the star issue as someone who indulges in films, if you take a picture on the moon where the sun is as bright as it would be on earth it would be like trying to take a picture of a star in broad daylight. i also have a question,would the cosmic dust have any affect on the camera’s films?
Astroprof on October 7, 2009 at 10:24 am: 76

Andrew,

The film would eventually fog due to cosmic radiation, but that would have taken longer than the few days that the Apollo missions were in space.

Besides just film, though, some of the video was taken using old-style television cameras. They suffer a similar dynamic range problem to film. If the gain were cranked up to get the stars, then everything else would be overexposed.
wpmsd on October 11, 2009 at 10:21 pm: 77

This is a great blog. I’ve learned a lot. I took my 10 year old daughter to a Buzz Aldrin book signing last week in LA. What a thrill. He’s a true historical figure in one of the greatest accomplishments in history.

There will always be naysayers who refuse to acknowledge facts and logic. No holocaust, earth is only a few thousand years old, Oswald didn’t act alone, moon landing faked. Don’t let them get under your skin.

Astroprof- kudos on keeping a civil tone in dealing with skeptics and relying on facts.
Cassie on October 14, 2009 at 10:05 pm: 78

so thats how it moves on the mmon. we are doing a brochure about the moon in science. one question, who thought that there WAS actually WATER on the moon? someone must of had a strong idea to beleive. heh heh. i mean what lead someone to beleive that once they hit the moon with a 5,000lb rocket that it would make 6(?) miles of dust fly up with some ice? i dont get that…
d3thm4d3r on October 21, 2009 at 12:55 am: 79

do you guys believe in moon landing dis is another discussion check dis website below.

http://24×7interestingfacts.blogspot.com/2007/10/did-neil-armstrong-land-on-moon.html#comment-4739711809506063513
d3thm4d3r on October 21, 2009 at 12:58 am: 80

uhh dis aint true also it actually waves its called radiate waves….
Astroprof on October 21, 2009 at 3:11 pm: 81

Wow. That web site is filled with so much misinformation that it is amazing! Every point made shows a clear lack of understanding of the thing that he is trying to describe. Also, each point has been thoroughly explained in many, many different reputable web sites around the internet.
Kristina on October 22, 2009 at 8:54 am: 82

I just finished reading a site claiming how the moon landing is fake. http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

I believe everything this person said you basically had the facts to prove them wrong.
Lheureux on November 2, 2009 at 2:53 pm: 83

Le drapeau avait tout simplement une barre de maintien horizontale en partie haute. Il n’y avait aucun grillage métallique dedans
d3thm4d3r on November 16, 2009 at 2:41 am: 84

yes ia gree ty guys post on dat website
d3thm4d3r on November 16, 2009 at 7:28 pm: 85

y do all ppl sya its fake? i dnt get it/ bcoz dey lyk Russia more den America? some1 explain to me its real and i live in New Zealand and im from taiwan. Explain pls
d3thm4d3r on November 16, 2009 at 7:29 pm: 86

i belive its real
d3thm4d3r on November 17, 2009 at 1:50 am: 87

wu eva posted hav u put in alot thought about dis? ppl say its fake den how bout it wen china said they land on the moon in 2008 or 2009? uer stating dis without evidence and jus to let u kno there is radiation wind up there so the flag can wave.
Music on November 29, 2009 at 8:43 am: 88

Anonymosity,

Try taking pictures of the stars in daylight, because the moon was lit up by very bright sunlight, human eyes and cameras will no see dim starlight in broad daylight.
d3thm4d3r on November 30, 2009 at 12:30 am: 89

we r not talking about taking pictures wif camera ITS SATELLITE u guys r so dumb enuf to belive its not real. IT IS REAL GUYS FACE THE FACT IT IS OK JUS COZ U GUYS R JEALOUS DAT RUSSIA SHOULDA BEEN UP DER BUT ITS NOT ITS THE AMERICANS SO DO UERSELVES A FAVER NO ONE WILL LIE ABOUT DIS.
austronomical15 on December 1, 2009 at 10:12 pm: 90

what kind of air packs did they use while walking on the moon? did they have some kind of compressor on the apollo? not saying this didnt happen, but the average air pack only last about thirty minutes so how many bottles of fresh air would they have had to take to complete this mission? i can believe the flag theories but i just cand figure out the fresh air situation
d3thm4d3r on December 1, 2009 at 11:10 pm: 91

dude dey had heaps of air otherwise dey wouldnt survive. U guys r wierd thinking this aint true. Coz u want russians to b up their 1st? Face it it is the fact u can’t change the fact. Even tho u do we all kno its real. So dnt try to fool uerself and other ppl. U guys r saying dis wifout evidence and facts and i do. any1 post it again its not real and BS i will prove it.
d3thm4d3r on December 1, 2009 at 11:12 pm: 92

austronomical15 if u dnt believe it dnt fool other ppl and uerself it is the fact u hav to face it. Idk y u guys made up dis is fake. Mayb u guys r jealous of the Americans coz dey r rich and advance technology? u guys r saying dis wifout evidence and research. And i hav…… i hav proofs.
ranksman on December 10, 2009 at 9:55 am: 93

i think america was being pressured by the Russians then for world power etc and so they stage and rehearse the whole thing to say they did land on the moon…my concerns a)the flag waves b)no stars in that thick darkness B)why cant we go back now since many person are saying its false c) knowledge has increase so it should be easy now.
Astroprof on December 10, 2009 at 4:37 pm: 94

ranksman,
How do you explain the photos of the landers and other Apollo hardware on the Moon if we didn’t actually go to the Moon?
d3thm4d3r on December 11, 2009 at 12:30 am: 95

y dnt ppl believe in dis the facts is right there right in front of u and no russia didnt pressure America. Russia simply jus didnt hav enogh money dat time face it ppls the facts are the facts u cant change it.
d3thm4d3r on December 11, 2009 at 12:31 am: 96

jus to let u know der is radiation waves up there so the flag can wave.
ranksman on December 14, 2009 at 9:22 am: 97

Astroprof;;;;
helo we have watched many movies about space things etc,,, it seemed real ….aint it???? i did say they rehearse the whole thing… simply i am saying it was created to grab the gullible people..why cant they go back now and we are more advance in
science….1960s and 1970s why not now should be a piece of cake now? or is it that we are now thinkers,,,,
cant be fooled that easily…helo do you think u have proof of them being up there think again??/?/??/? technology……was commando real…?? and all the other movies helo think again… it was rehearse….hoax>>>>> >
ranksman on December 14, 2009 at 9:36 am: 98

d3thm43r
i am not reasoning this from any patriotic background am just being critical u get me…photos can be easily tampered/played with, i do it u do it to….who tell u it was the moon cud be any where..also its easy to use strings and stage the thing.also they can give u the thing in slow motion to get the space effect plus many other things etc…. what proof u have it was the moon… u are as clueless as everybody else????? i can tell u though that it so damn easy to stage that thing and made it appears to be like the moon… u have a moon image in u head ……..anything u get u take…be critical…. not patriotic…..i couldnt careless who went up there first,,, not my business but i will not be fooled this easily though that much i can tell u!!!
d3thm4d3r on December 17, 2009 at 5:22 pm: 99

lmfao ranksman u got any question to ask me ill b free to answer dem i had proof i already gave u the website. U fink its fake coz u fink dey acted out rlly no as u say the technology is advanced now b4 dey couldnt edit the films not as good as now even if dey did would russia keep thier mouths shut if it’s fake think about it. The fact is always the fact no one can change the real truth if dats wut u think dis is fake do not change other ppls point of view thank you very much u think ur rlly smart dnt u. Well im here to answer every single question u got.
d3thm4d3r on December 17, 2009 at 5:28 pm: 100

u want the website here it is http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
ranksman on December 22, 2009 at 10:12 pm: 101

you are right no one can change the truth. the question is what is the truth????
d3thm4d3r i see ur hooked on this but hey …films have been creative from long before that(lmao)….go check that out…….

i have a simple question for you, what proof do u have that they did land on the moon?? remember now you have never been on the moon and you have no idea what it looks like…you only may want to believe that what they say is the right thing!!!!!????can you really tell or is it that you just grab that and believe that it is true…. did you know that many of american history is a big lie…go research a lot of american history is a big lie!!!!!and many believe because it was written in a bookk… not me lmao…
Astroprof on December 23, 2009 at 8:13 am: 102

The truth is pretty obvious to anyone with an open mind. We really DID go to the Moon. The evidence is plain and incontrovertible. Period. Believing otherwise, despite the overwhelming evidence, is just another case of someone refusing to believe something that they don’t want to believe.
ranksman on December 23, 2009 at 7:50 pm: 103

Astroprof why is it that they don’t wanna go back now?????/ they are pretty aware that many persons like myself really think they didn’t land on the moon?? i believe they can easily go back now and since we are a lot more advance now…. dont u think? it has been a long while and yes we would want to know what’s the condition there now… what’s changing and what remains the same etc?
wouldn’t u wanna know? and if u wanna know, what about them who think about those things daily?????curiosity would have brought them back don’t u think????? see if u are getting my point my friend my mind is so open thats why i am thinking like this….open and out of the box until i am comfortable>>>>
Astroprof on December 23, 2009 at 8:29 pm: 104

Of course they want to go back! NASA has been wanting to go back for decades. All you need to do is to convince Congress to appropriate the money.
ranksman on December 24, 2009 at 8:09 am: 105

are you sure its about the money… i doubt that money wouldn’t be the issue and you know that too….it must be something else right??? remember now it has been approximately 40 years now. i really believe its greater than that i knew you would have said its the money etc…
my friend think again…..i really think NASA wants to go….. not to go back they never did!!!!!but the country is saying since we have done it(HOAX)then and many believe why DO THE REAL THING ……..LMAO
Angie on December 24, 2009 at 9:33 am: 106

Of course, it is the money. Just look at how NASA’s budget was cut after going to the Moon the first time.

And, besides, if they did not go to the Moon, then how do you explain all of the proof that they did? How do you explain the Moon rocks, the radio transmissions monitored by the Soviets, the instruments left on the Moon, the tracking of the spacecraft, etc? What about the hardware left on the Moon?

And, as big of an endeavor as that was, with so many people involved, and so much scrutiny both within and without the nation, could NOT have been faked and gotten away with. That makes no sense at all.

And, what of those involved? How many Apollo astronauts have you spoken with? How many Apollo engineers have you talked to? I have talked with a number of each. I also watched these events unfold on television. I know what was going on in the nation and the world at the time. What about you?

To say that the Moon landings were faked is about as ignorant as saying that the world is going to end in 2012. Why can’t you accept facts????
ranksman on December 24, 2009 at 2:51 pm: 107

i like your word “fact” not truth. anyway all that you have said still havent made anything clearer , because all the apollo workers have the same objectives and so you will get the same response. as for the rock any body can make a rock remember its just simply chemistry that does that. . .

glad you mention 2012 wow how real they made it look!!! but it was just a movie well rehearse and put together like the move landing HOAX… am still saying my friend you are as clueless as i everybody else…you just believe to satisfy your patriotic self..

hello angie i believe the apollo reallly went up and yes the astronauts went up but guess what they orbit the earth and NASA time their orbit and show all that etc and yes they did land but on earth after the 8 days look at this link and be open minded…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1CpNoI4WGc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1CpNoI4WGc
Nathan on January 12, 2010 at 3:32 pm: 108

First of all, why would the government start a program and invest billions of dollars into it just to make it a hoax. We went to the moon. its fact. the flag can wave because there was moisture in the flag as it was unravled the oxigen and other gases trapped in the fabric would escape due to the lack of an atmosphere. you can try this by looking at a helium balloon float. So what if the flag waved, its not waving anymore…. and yes its there….
Nathan on January 12, 2010 at 3:32 pm: 109

yes i know i spelled oxygen wrong.
SgtHK on January 21, 2010 at 7:27 am: 110

ranksman, the evidence that people have been to the moon is overwhelming and undeniable (undeniable except for people like you). All your arguments have been answered in the article and in previous posts.

You are obviously an uneducated juvenile who has yet to learn that a “fact” is a pragmatic TRUTH that is observable by sight, sound, smell, taste, and/or touch. Therefore, facts can never be anything other than TRUTH.

To anyone still hot on the footprint theory and how sand can bind in the absence of moisture, the Mythbusters have already shown how it’s possible. Sand grains on Earth have been exposed to erosion and are rounded, thereby requiring moisture for them to bind. But sand grains on the moon have been exposed to almost no erosion. Looking at them from a microscope, the sand grains are jagged and sharp. This means they bind easily to each other without the presence of moisture.
Moonwalker on January 23, 2010 at 5:47 am: 111

Ok, so if they never went how do you explain the hammer and feather falling to the ground at the same time. Also, how do you explain the photographs taken of the moon in the foreground and the earth in the background?. Finally, how do you expect all the people involved in the hoax would never have adnitted it by now or on their deathbed. Conspiracy theoreists would rather believe outlandish theories than the simple truth.
Mel on March 25, 2010 at 9:01 am: 112

moonwalker- and you would rather believe what could be a big lie because you are too simple minded and one sided to consider other facts…Tell me this, Nasa says they can not go to the moon again because they “have lost their plans” to go back…Are they really that disorganized to lose something that important????
And as for the photos, look into a little program called photoshop!
its amazing! lol
Sports news » Blog Archive » Ryan Newman’s still holding out on this whole moon landing thing on March 29, 2010 at 8:59 am: 113

[…] Wait, what? Faked? We’re still on that? (Long later confirmed that Newman was indeed completely serious and not pulling his leg.) I thought it was pretty well established that we were there, and that the flag stood straight out because it had wire mesh embedded in the cloth. […]
Ryan Newman’s still holding out on this whole moon landing thing on March 30, 2010 at 4:31 am: 114

[…] Wait, what? Faked? We’re still on that? (Long later confirmed that Newman was indeed completely serious and not pulling his leg.) I thought it was pretty well established that we were there, and that the flag stood straight out because it had wire mesh embedded in the cloth. […]
Tracy on April 20, 2010 at 7:27 pm: 115

my comment is not about if we went to the moon or how the flag doesn’t wave. My daughter wants to know how the flag was stuck into the moon because it is made of rock.
Ed on May 27, 2010 at 7:46 am: 116

I would like to know why there are NO pictures of any of the “stuff” left behind on the moon. “IF” we landed on the moon, we would be able to view all the equipment left behind with telescopes. We can see into other galaxys but cannot see a lunar rover on the moon? Does anyone have proof from a telescope here on earth?
Ed on May 27, 2010 at 7:50 am: 117

One thing more for those that say you cant see the items because they were on a side of the moon away from earth. If they could see earth from where they stood, as the “pictures” suggest, we could see them.
Indian kid on May 27, 2010 at 2:31 pm: 118

Try this. Take a flag on a short pole and wave it back and forth vigorously. You’ll see that it stands out and ripples, but the moment you stop waving, it settles down. This is because of Newton’s laws and gravity. The flag stops waving because of the friction from our atmosphere and settles down because of our gravity. If you tried the same experiment in space, the flag would continue to wave. Well, there is no atmosphere on the moon and the gravity is 1/6 that of Earth. So, when the astronauts had to twist the flag pole back and forth to get it to go into the lunar surface, it caused a ripple affect to be seen on the flag for quite a while.
Thanks to the moon’s gravity, the flag did eventually settle, as much as the second, horizontal pole would allow. In fact it dropped even further eventually. As the Lunar Module launched to rejoin the Command Module, the blast knocked the flag over.
Astroprof on May 28, 2010 at 10:51 am: 119

Ed,

There ARE pictures now. In fact, the latest generation of lunar orbiters have been sending back pictures for a while. Just look at the resolution equations, though, and you’ll see that there is no telescope on the surface of the Earth big enough to see anything as small as the artifacts left on the Moon. That is why it took larger instruments in lunar orbit to see the “stuff” left behind.
Ed on June 1, 2010 at 1:58 pm: 120

Thank you for the reply, do you have a reference website?
Ed on June 1, 2010 at 2:04 pm: 121

I am still having a hard time with this. If we have satellites in orbit that can read the front page of a newspaper in Baghdad, why can’t we see something the size of a dunebuggy on the moon? Even with bad resolution, we should be able to view it well enough to determine “if” it is lunar equipment or rocks.
Ed on June 1, 2010 at 2:06 pm: 122

After working for the Government, i will not trust a thing they say or an “approved picture” until it can be proven by a third party.
Nick on September 9, 2010 at 10:08 pm: 123

I work for the government, too. However I am convinced that is was far easier to put men on the moon and return them to earth than it would have been to perfectly fake the process AND keep it all a secret. With the power of today’s computers it would be easier to get most of the details right in a fabricated scenario, but it would have been impossible back then. I understand that an iPhone has more computing capacity than the Apollo Guidance System.
ThePerson on October 6, 2010 at 7:48 am: 124

Ummmm i pretty sure someone mentioned that the moon is about 15% of the earth’s gravity am I right? So if there is gravity, there should be gases, a bit of it. And if there is gases and earth’s gravity, shouldn’t there be a bit of wind on the moon? Thus making the flag move in some videos, if I’m wrong I’m sorry, but I’m only thirteen who doesn’t get this things
O.D.D on December 14, 2010 at 8:19 pm: 125

i have to admit that although i do believe we went to the moon,i just don’t buy the photographic or video evidence we’ve been shown..examples being fixed reticules on the lens of the camera appearing behind the “actors”,shall we call them,and other objects(the lander in 1)in the pictures.photos and videoes alleged to be taken at the same time yet showing different things(flaps on back of suit,waving or not waving about with the movement of actors).seperate pictures reportedly taken on different days over 2 KMs apart yet showing the same objects in them,(objects in the foregound as opposed to the background as earlier debunked).to name but a few of my doubts..now for an honest question,who was left behind to film the apollo crafts taking off for the return journey to earth,and if this image was mearly beamed back to earth,how did they get such a good signal when my TV reception still goes haywire everytime a lorry pulls into my street.. p.s. moonbase is a strange word for verification Astroprof(maybe a hint to your real beliefs,that we did land but a welcome party of sorts told us to feck off again)..
O.D.D on December 14, 2010 at 8:36 pm: 126

Sorry,ment to leave this with last comment,(http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html).again not saying it didnt happen but surely in this day and age,we are all smart enough to know that something does’nt have to be true just because our governments say so..

Once a man stops asking questions he might aswell stop breathing..If you never ask you’ll never learn..
timb2 on January 4, 2011 at 9:07 pm: 127

Why are we not there 40 years later then? Even with the Shuttle program? If going to moon was that easy in the 60’s it should have been easier now.Big questions not answered here at all!
Harvey Frampton on January 24, 2011 at 8:30 am: 128

Hello astroprof i think this is very intresting for me i have a dream yes going to mars very intresting i think it is not fake because they launched the shuttlecraft how did they get to the studio if they were in the shuttlecraft!
jss on February 16, 2011 at 9:10 pm: 129

If the moon is that extreme in hot and cold temps, why doesn’t a nylon flag melt?
Ken on February 25, 2011 at 9:06 am: 130

I was very young when I saw the original Lunar landing. I remember wondering about the waving, because I had been told that there was no atmosphere on the moon and then I remember Watler Cronkite asking about the waving motion of the flag,as if the wind were blowing it, (which wasn’t just the mesh or wires holding it up. An official, from NASA I think at the time said he wasn’t certain, but suggested that it might have do to some effect of the solar winds. I’m not certain if it was the solar winds or not, but I am certain that it did wave. I am certain we went to the moon–an awsome achievement for humanity and the times, but I think that the flag did wave for whatever reason.
yugioh on May 2, 2011 at 5:50 pm: 131

that is awesome.thank you for explaining that topic thoroughly I JUST WON 50 BUCKS because of that
marie on May 2, 2011 at 5:54 pm: 132

3=========D):
bob cherry on May 14, 2011 at 6:37 pm: 133

any 1 that don’t beleve men go 2 moon tell me how u get picture of earth, r were space ships seen blasting off go 2?
bob cherry on May 14, 2011 at 6:45 pm: 134

moon man! {o_o}
bob cherry on May 14, 2011 at 6:49 pm: 135

sniff my grandpa worked to get man to the moon. so he waisted his whole life!
bob cherry on May 14, 2011 at 7:23 pm: 136

hmmm….. astroprof has not replied to any ? 4 awile… think he DEAD!!!!!!!
Mya on May 14, 2011 at 7:30 pm: 137

no…. astroprof probily dosent check the comments anymore, this page has been up 4 over 3 years
unipal390 on July 7, 2011 at 3:03 am: 138

I don’t think theres any way to really tell if we made it to the moon or not. It’s just one of lifes many mysteries.
James on July 16, 2011 at 6:37 pm: 139

On Apollo 16, can you explain how photographic paper survived the Uv rays of the sun with no ozone or atmosphere for protection? An astronaut laid a photo of his family on the moon.

It seems odd NASA went to such great extremes to protect an aluminum landing pad with mylar, cameras, tools and just about everything else exposed, but then placed nylon flag from Sears (nyl-glo didn’t come on the scene until the late 1990’s) and an unprotected photograph on the surface. Seems fishy to me.
James on July 16, 2011 at 11:42 pm: 140

Maybe that is why NASA won’t verify what brand of flag it was as then the type of material it is made of could be verified.
I know the “formal” excuse is to keep it anonymous for copyright & trademark violations, but they had no problem in letting people know Grumman built the LM.

Don’t get me wrong, I love NASA and the moon. Maybe someday we will go there.
gene on July 28, 2011 at 7:59 am: 141

One question I’ve had while watching the videos is:

If they can pick up a rock and the rock can fly 200 ft (due to the low gravitional pull) then when the moon buggy is spinning it’s tires, shouldn’t the sand fly up alot further. Or when they’re hopping around the sand only moves about 14 or so inches. Seems like the sand should launch in the air and keep going. Perhaps I’m wrong about that.
Get Real on August 10, 2011 at 4:52 am: 142

Ed I agree with you; we can’t possibly believe everything our governments tell us. There is plenty of evidence to prove that it could possibly be a hoax, then there is the supposed evidence that proves that it is real. Well I think it is a hoax. What better way to prove you are the most superior country? We can’t all be so small minded to think that we are always told the absolute truth. Do you trust your president that much? I guess maybe you believe a big fat man dressed in red and white with a big beard will climb down your chiminey on Xmas Eve too??
Racchy on September 10, 2011 at 6:12 pm: 143

What staggers me about the conspiracy idiots who post here is that they don’t stop and consider all the facts, nor bother to read the explanations that answer their questions.

Granted this is not surprising for some - many here can’t spell or even construct a sentence let alone read and understand an answer to a scientific question. Nevertheless, some ridiculous points are used to construct a nonsensical hypothesis.

Get Real - a misnomer if ever there was one - talks of ‘what our Governments tell us’. The Moon landings weren’t about the U.S. President standing up and announcing we’d landed on the Moon and posting a few films that now show up on YouTube. Anyone alive at that time (fortunately I was) will tell you that the whole world was watching the Apollo program. Our Governments don’t tell us we landed on the Moon; History, Science, Physics and Commonsense tell us.

Why have we not gone back? Again, anyone alive will tell you that by the time Apollo 17 landed, there were a lot of people complaining about the cost of the whole program and asking what more was to be learnt. Do I think the naysayers were right? Of course not. But you need to study the social history of the U.S. in the mid-70’s to understand that (I say that as a UK citizen, by the way).

Every single conspiracy theory has been answered on this page alone and there is also added information here that most don’t know about (Reflectors on the moon, photos of the debris left taken from orbiting satellites etc.)

Denying we went to the Moon is like denying anything else in history that actually occured. Sadly though, we live in odd times. Even if I were able to somehow transport all these disbelieving idiots back to ‘69, to the surface of the Moon and actually show them Armstrong and Aldrin walking on the surface they would probably say “You’ve not really taken me back, have you? This is all a trick….”

Honestly, I despair that some of the buffoons on here are going to have children of their own!
BlackDahlia54 on September 11, 2011 at 4:04 pm: 144

Well said, Racchy. Well said.
MythBusted on September 17, 2011 at 12:47 pm: 145

This myth busters episode should shed a little light.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EMr8H1vmOo&feature=related

This still won’t convince some people but, reality is different for some folks.
Someone phone Ken Ring on this! « Frankly Speaking… on September 22, 2011 at 6:07 am: 146

[…] it is attached to, as the astronaut is handling it, and trying to bury it into the lunar soil. More here […]
Hannah on November 19, 2011 at 9:42 pm: 147

WOW that is amazing how they can do that. It is so impressive to.
Hannah on November 19, 2011 at 9:42 pm: 148

WOW that is amazing how they can do that.
O-train on January 16, 2012 at 2:00 pm: 149

i got a boner
SomeKid on February 3, 2012 at 9:52 pm: 150

Obviously we’ve made it to the moon. I guess none of you guys can see the “man on the moon.”
Metalx on February 16, 2012 at 1:02 pm: 151

I think they really went there n should there have been any conspiracy then it would have already been known..someone said that the moon is a heavenly body n that no one can go there but I dnt think so..plus I think why would NASA invest in such a high budget mission once again and only to prove the hoax wrong at the expense of people who believes it was
The Physical Question on March 14, 2012 at 7:42 pm: 152

hey astroprof
a few questions:
how long did the apollo astronauts stay in the van allan belt?
how long is it possible to stay in the belts without dying of exosure to radiation?
thanks in advane
The Physical Question on March 14, 2012 at 7:43 pm: 153

Sorry for the type-os
By the way I like the password
flygweilo on March 23, 2012 at 11:02 pm: 154

To: The Physical Question

The answers are: about 20 mins to pass through the Inner Van Allen Belt, and about 2 hours (at most) to pass through the upper belt.

The Belts are variable, however, and from Cape Canaveral’s latitude, any moonshot would not have passed through the thickest parts of the Van Allen Belts.

The ‘hoax believers’ are delusional - there is, upon sober reflection, no other word for it. To give but one example - they will not believe the moon landings occurred, but they have no trouble believing in the existence of the Van Allen Belts. They have no first-hand, personal, verifiable evidence that the Van Allen Belts exist (and yet are prepared to take someone else’s word that they do), so why do they apply a different standard of proof to the moon landings?

One of the most unintentionally hilarious hoaxer myths are the alleged problems with the shadows the astronauts cast on the moon. I visited one site where the ‘hoaxer’ had published a a photograph of the two astronauts on the lunar surface, in which he claimed that the shadows lay in two different directions, thus ‘proving’ that it was a scene faked on a studio set, as the shadows ‘proved’ there was more than one light source!

I fell about laughing at this piece of ‘hoaxer’ idiocy …

Why?

Well, if you look carefully at any such photograph, you can see that the astronauts are standing a few metres apart, and their shadows are falling on terrain that slopes in different directions. For one astronaut, the terrain slopes down and away to his let, causing his shadow to be extended and appear to lie in that direction. The other astronaut’s shadow falls on terrain sloping up and away to his right, causing his shadow to be shorter and fall in what appears to be a slightly different direction.

But the biggest clanger dropped by this ‘hoaxer’ is the fact that each astronaut has only one shadow each!

If the photo had indeed been faked in a studio with two separate light sources, then each astronaut would have had two separate shadows.

And they don’t. They only have one each.

Truly, a little learning is a dangerous thing …
Wassim on April 16, 2012 at 10:53 am: 155

Astroprof

I bet with you for 1 million dollars, if you can find at least 1 gramm of Lunar soil, brought then from Moon soil, and they said, they brought 36kg.
GODFATHER_ on April 29, 2012 at 10:46 pm: 156

AstroProf, and all you that believe we actually sent men to the moon and back in 1969. I was a boy and forced to watch the event for many days until I pointed out the flag waving to my dad, and started asking questions again about the gravity and how could that be..he immediately freaked out and shut it off.He has a masters deg+30 in mathematics.How convenient the original footage of that historic was “lost”? Most footage now is fake with metal flag, that is Not what we saw in 1969.I’ve also seen the “command module” in person and that would not and did not pass through our atmosphere with 3 living people in it.Goto http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=H8ZzFemBUJQ and watch this for more real evidence.
GODFATHER_ on April 29, 2012 at 11:00 pm: 157

I’m not saying we have not ever been to the moon and back. I’m saying its Physically Impossible to have occurred in 1969’s Apollo 11 mission. It did Not happen.
Matt Carrell on June 1, 2012 at 10:33 pm: 158

I have seen the video of the waving flag played on TV. You can say what you want about that.. But the fact remains that in all of the video supposedly taken “ON THE MOON”.. where there are no clouds to block the view, and the sun is not in the lens of the camera to blot it out… THERE ARE NO STARS IN THE BACKGROUND! No stars = FAKE MOON VIDEO! Only a sound-stage would have a complete lack of light from other stars. We see them here on earth. The view from the moon would be endlessly clearer, yet there are NO STARS in the background. WE HAVE BEEN LIED TO LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! Go see for yourself. You will find no stars.
Matt Carrell on June 1, 2012 at 10:44 pm: 159

How come NOT ONCE did they ever turn the cameras in any shot to show the Earth in the background? NOT ONCE! You’d think they would want video of the earth as seen from the moon. It don’t exist. They could have even set off some kind of bright flash of light or flare from the moon so people on the night side of the earth could have seen men there at a coordinated time as proof of men on the moon. That would have been awesome.. yet that was never given any thought? Why? It can’t be done if you aren’t there!
Harold J. Belt on July 20, 2012 at 6:37 pm: 160

Do you skeptics not think that with all the effort and cost put into “faking” the landing, that at least one of those brilliant minds would have thought to make the flag with plywood or some other rigid material that wouldn’t wave even in a hurricane? Come on people!
shogan on August 31, 2012 at 8:44 pm: 161

Here is my question. it does not apply to the flag but the take off back to earth. it is a scientificaly prooven fact that flames cant exist in space as the need oxygen. so how did they get off the moon?
proballygonnabdeleted on September 3, 2012 at 11:23 pm: 162

The landing on the moon. I guess we will never know the truth. Back then we were in a race against the soviets to prove superiority. When they beat us with sputnik someone in hollywood mentioned how easy it would be to stage the landing. Everyone believes the boobtube so everyone gets fooled. The main reason I find it hard to believe is all the evidence trying to prove it wrong is very overwhelming while all the evidence of proof is all to pathetic. Space dust moving the flag of mesh. Surviving the van allen belt lol. Please they just didnt pass through it they stayed in it for the whole mission. Impossible is impossible. I am 37 now and I bet I will never ever see a manned space mission to the moon, mars etc. China is gonna try and that will be the ultimate proof when their astronauts die in the process.
Annu on October 23, 2012 at 8:29 am: 163

Hi there… I have heard both sides of the stories— The American and the Russian. Let us not dig too much into Flags moving / not moving etc. Well the images taken show clearly black shadows and dim light as if there are lights kept in the dark. The photos should look like as if they are totally dark or totally with light as you it would happen Naturally on Planet Earth. The Moon stuff does not look natural to me. Even if I try to believe that Apollo 11 happened, then please address my next question.

Now simple Question : Why human never reached the moon again.

Ans: I have heard “Nth” number of stupid answers that.. It is very expensive etc etc.. Comon give me a break. It was more expensive in 1960 than in 1980s or in 2000s.

So if Humans are eying to reach Moon in 2020, 2050 etc etc, it is very much really possible now with technology.

If humans did not try to reach the moon between 1960 and 2000, then there is something wrong with the mission of Apollo 11.

I intend to believe that mission to moon was hoaxed by NASA.

Comon, NASA can fool the world. Again nothing against Americans / Russians / Or any country…

Simply world was fooled!
sid on February 11, 2013 at 2:08 am: 164

To the idiots who beleive it took place Why arent we going now why arent we making it a commercial aspect… and u seriously believe a tin foil shittle shuttle landed there cmon u guys only till recently we were able to enter Mariana trench (inc ase the idiots are blank that’s the deepest part of the earth’s crust underwater)
oh oh oh and y hasnt ne other nation gone to the moon let alone ze yankees esp when the russians beat them fair and square by sending the first cosmonaut to space, first woman, first dog, first chimp etc… cmon men it was all done in a holywood studio not trampling on patriotic steps but if you study the boston globe the premier aviation lockheed had as recently as 1998 shot a rocket to space for mars and guess what they dont know if it reached or got exploded as the error found was they forgot to maintain consistent units go figure guys and as for the astro belt i think the guy meant van der wals radiation belt !!
Chris Carter on February 12, 2013 at 1:38 pm: 165

Hi Sid, it appears that you’re just another one of these ignorant and very misinformed ‘hoaxers’ who have NO research on the Apollo missions whatsoever. You comments are noted, but disregarded as utter rubbish. Back to your Lego little boy.
Cosmored on March 27, 2013 at 5:55 am: 166

There’s a mountain of proof that the moon missions were faked. Here’s a link to some of it.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487